This month, the Sharm el Sheikh Climate Change Conference (COP-27) brought together heads of state and government in multilateral action to create a ‘loss and damage’ fund for developing countries affected by climate-related disasters. The deal will provide financial assistance in rescuing and rebuilding the physical and social infrastructure of poor countries affected by extreme weather conditions.
The resolution was brought forward by a coalition of developing countries and finalised at 7am on Sunday 20 November, running more than 36 hours over the Conference’s scheduled Friday night deadline. Its success signals a shift towards ‘climate justice’ in the global debate of recent years. Unnerving developments such as floods in Pakistan and drought in East Africa have demonstrated that the devastating effects of rising global temperatures will continue to disproportionately affect developing countries, which contribute the least emissions.
The conference also renewed the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global heating to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. COP-26, held at Glasgow in November 2021, saw high-emissions countries such as China and India signing up to long-term commitments of reaching net-zero by 2070. However, do these pledges signify anything beyond far-off plans and unfulfilled promises?
A report from the world’s top climate analysis coalition, Climate Action Tracker (CAT), found that the plans submitted by most countries will not be drastic enough to achieve the 1.5C goal. Developed countries have remained reluctant to commit to any real climate action before 2030 in the form of governmental policies, or nationally determined contributions (NDCs). CAT analysis made a sobering assessment that even a full implementation of current NDCs would lead to a global temperature rise of 2.4C by the end of the century.
The commitments of COP-26 came under constant attack at Sharm el Sheikh in the face of the demands of oil-producing countries. A proposal from India to agree upon a phasing-out of all fossil fuels was watered down to the phasing-out of coal only by OPEC countries such as Saudi Arabia.
In a world of rhetoric and performance, hours are spent furiously debating the wording of a single line of a resolution. Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London, argued for an alternative system: A number of devolved, smaller bodies “each addressing one of the key issues – notably energy, agriculture, deforestation, transport, loss, and damage”. Under the current model, climate action is shaped by the power of interest groups to block entire resolutions. Fossil fuels are a key example of this: Despite an agreed scientific understanding of their detrimental impact for over three decades, there remains no unilateral action on phasing-out.
Further to this, the nascence of the ‘loss and damage’ fund is a microcosm for the wider changes in the geopolitics of international development. Poor nations and campaigners have argued that developing countries should have the right to directly engage in debates over financial aid and to be given the dignity to decide where cash is best suited.
At COP-27, these countries were clear and united in their demands for a new, separate fund that could be disbursed quickly in the event of disaster. The EU, US, and UK were initially resistant to this, preferring a ‘mosaic’ approach to funding that would be comprised of existing institutions such as the World Bank, Green Climate Fund, and Global Environment Facility. However, Seve Paeniu, finance minister of Tuvalu, asserted that “it’s no use having funding that comes three weeks later, if you’re hit by a hurricane”.
Conferences of such momentous importance rely upon flurries of historic announcements and exciting promises. The ‘loss and damage’ fund can be seen as another performative compromise in which developed countries are able to control the narrative of ‘progress’, whilst remaining the steadfast defenders of the geopolitical status quo. Dr Sven Teske, at the Sydney University of Technology, argued that without an accompanying commitment to a total phase out of fossil fuels, developed countries essentially “accept to pay for future damages rather than avoiding them”.
The next ten years will be vital in the prevention of total climate destruction. Even the most optimistic projections forecast severe disruption to vulnerable countries. COP-27 raises the question as to whether global conferences are fit to deal with the climate crisis beyond providing an arena for geo-political maneuvering under the eager glare of the global media.